Sponsorship

A.8044 - SWEENEY, WEISENBERG, COLTON, ENGLEBRIGHT, DINOWITZ, CARROZZA, DIAZ R, O`DONNELL, GOTTFRIED, HOOPER, TITUS, LENTOL, GIANARIS, WEPRIN, CAHILL LATIMER, PEOPLES, PERRY, CYMBROWITZ, LAFAYETTE, SCHIMEL, MILLMAN, PAULIN, BRADLEY, BENEDETTO, BING, SEMINERIO, BROOK-KRASNY, MAISEL, JAFFEE, LAVINE, STIRPE, BRENNAN, YOUNG, GALEF, MAGNARELLI, ROSENTHAL, ROBINSON, KAVANAGH, ORTIZ, arroyo, boyland, christensen, clark, diaz l, farrell, glick, gordon d hevesi, jacobs, jeffries, lifton, lupardo, markey, mayersohn, mceneny pheffer, thiele, weinstein

Memorandum in Support

BILL NUMBER: A8044A REVISED 5/6/08

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the environmental conservation law, the economic development law and the state finance law, in relation to returnable beverage containers; and to repeal sections 27-1005, 27-1007 and subdivision 2 of section 27-1011 of the environmental conservation law relating thereto

PURPOSE :

This bill: (1) expands the state`s returnable container act (the "bottle bill") to include non-carbonated beverage containers; (2) requires payment by deposit initiators (generally, manufacturers or distributors) of unclaimed deposits to the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF); and (3) provides financial incentives to municipalities, not-for-profit organizations and businesses to enhance container recycling capabilities.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS :

Section 1 of the bill amends Environmental Conservation law (ECL) S 27-1001 to make it consistent with other ECL sections that are revised by the bill.

Sections 2 and 3 of the bill amend ECL S 27-1003 to: (1) define the class of beverage containers that are subject to the expanded bottle bill, and (2) add several new subdivisions thereto to define new terms and concepts used in the expanded bottle bill. Bottles, cans and jars used to contain liquor, wine, infant formula, milk and dairy products, rice and soy milks, dietary supplements, medications, concentrates and soups remain exempt from the bottle bill.

Sections 4 and 5 of the bill repeal and replace ECL SS 27-1005 and 27-1007, and amend ECL S 27-1009, to: (1) define and clarify the rights and legal obligations of persons subject to the expanded bottle bill; and (2) increase the fee paid to retailers for the handling of empty beverage containers.

Sections 6 and 6-a of the bill repeal and renumber certain subdivisions of ECL S 27-1011 to make these sections consistent with other ECL sections that are revised by the bill.

Section 7 of the bill adds a new section 27-1012 to the ECL to: (1) require deposit initiators to pay unclaimed refund values to the State for deposit in the EPF; (2) specify procedures and requirements for registration of deposit initiators and the collection, handling and payment of refund values, (3) provide the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance with the authority to administer and enforce several provisions of the expanded bottle bill, including those relating to registration of deposit initiators, maintenance of accounts and records, reporting requirements and payment obligations, and (4) add penalties for violation of these new provisions.

Section 8 of the bill amends ECL S 27-1013 to make it consistent with other ECL sections that are revised by the bill.

Section 9 of the bill amends ECL S 27-1014 to clarify the authority of the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation to adopt rules and regulations.

Section 10 of the bill amends ECL S 27-1015 to expand and clarify the penalties for violation of the expanded bottle bill.

Section 11 of the bill adds a new section 27-1016 to the ECL to require the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation to establish a

public education program to . disseminate information about implementation of the expanded bottle bill.

Section 12 of the bill amends ECL S 27-1017 to clarify the authority of political subdivisions to enforce certain provisions of the expanded bottle bill.

Section 13 of the bill adds a new section 27-1018 to the ECL to create a "returnable container act advisory board" to monitor and make recommendations to the Governor and legislature concerning the State`s beverage container recycling program.

Section 14 of the bill adds a new section 27-1019 to the ECL, and section 15 of the bill amends Economic Development law (EDL) S 261, to provide for assistance payments to municipalities and not-for-profit organizations under to the ECL, and to businesses under the EDL, to defray the costs of purchasing and improving beverage container recycling equipment and facilities.

Section 16 of the bill amends State Finance law (SFL) S 92-s(3) to require that unclaimed refund values paid to the state be deposited into the EPF.

Section 17 of the bill amends SFL S 92-s(6) to authorize that moneys from the solid waste account be available for the beverage container assistance program created by the new section 27-1019 of the ECL.

Section 18 of the bill sets forth the effective dates for the various sections of the bill.

EXISTING LAW

The current bottle bill does not require the collection of deposits on, or the redemption of, non-carbonated beverage containers. In addition, the current bottle bill does not mandate that revenues from unclaimed deposits be paid to the State.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT

New York`s "bottle bill" is one of the State`s most successful recycling and anti-litter initiatives. There is less litter and broken glass in our streets, farm fields, playgrounds, parks and beaches as a result of the bottle bill. It has also reduced the burden of solid waste disposal that is shouldered by local governments and taxpayers.

Since the enactment of the original bottle bill in 1982, non-carbonated beverages such as bottled water, juices, teas and sports drinks have become extremely popular. Millions of bottles and cans from such beverages end up in the trash or littering the environment because consumers lack an incentive to recycle such containers.

Updating the bottle bill to include non-carbonated beverages will provide an incentive to make our environment cleaner and safer by increasing recycling. By requiring beverage companies to provide unclaimed deposits to the State for deposit into the EPF, the bill will also generate new funding for State and local environmental programs. It is estimated that expansion of the bottle bill will result in at least $100 million for deposit into the EPF.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS :

This bill will result in annual revenues of approximately $100 million for deposit in the EPF.

EFFECTIVE DATE : The bill becomes effective upon enactment; provided however, that sections 2,3 and 7 of the bill take effect September 1, 2008; sections, 5, 6, 6-a, 8,10,12 and 13 take effect January 1, 2009; and the requirements to make deposits, file reports and make withdrawals and payments under section 27-1012 of the Eel as added by section 7 of the bill first apply to the period beginning on January 1, 2009 and ending February 28, 2009.

Sponsorship

A.3837 - BARCLAY, CALHOUN, KOLB, GIGLIO, MCKEVITT, OAKS, bacalles, barra, crouch, errigo, finch, mcdonough, miller, rabbitt, raia, sayward, thiele, townsend / - 1

Memorandum in Support

BILL NUMBER: A3837

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the insurance law, the penal law and the executive law, in relation to establishing the New York automobile insurance fraud and premium reduction act; and making an appropriation therefor

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL :

To reduce the cost of automobile insurance.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :

Section 1 is the short title.

Section 2 adds a new section 5109 to the Insurance Law, reinstating the no-fault managed care option that was allowed to expire in 1998.

Section 3 amends Insurance Law section 5102(a) (1) to require the establishment of medical treatment and diagnostic testing protocols to be employed in the evaluation and treatment of injuries sustained in automobile accidents. Pre-certification of treatments, diagnostic tests and the purchase of durable medical equipment may be required, except within 10 days of an accident giving rise to injuries.

Section 4 amends Insurance Law section 5103(d) to establish a 30 day window for the initial filing of a notice of a no-fault claim, unless a reasonable justification for delay exists due to the nature of the injury.

Section 5 adds Insurance Law subsection 5108(d) to establish a 45 day period from the date that a service was rendered for which medical provider claims must be submitted for payment.

Section 6 amends Insurance Law subsections 5106 (a), (b) and (c) to increase, from 30 to 45 days, the time period within which no-fault payments are deemed timely and to provide that the failure to issue a denial of claim within this time period does not preclude the raising of a defense to the claim where fraud is suspected. Further, arbitration (rather than a choice between arbitration or litigation) is established as the exclusive remedy for claim disputes.

Section 7 amends Insurance Law section 5303 (c) to remove the exception that presently exists for liability insurance (and as applied, to include no-fault) from the requirement that assigned risk rates must be self supporting, thereby making all assigned risk rates self supporting.

Section 8 amends Insurance Law section 405(d) (11) to require the Insurance Department to report on the incidence of misrepresentation by insureds of the principal place where motor vehicles are garaged and driven.

Section 9 adds a new section 405-a to the Insurance Law, creating a monetary incentive of between 15 and 25 percent of the amount recovered (up to $25,000) for persons who report suspected insurance fraud to the law enforcement authorities.

Sections 10 - 18 amend and add new sections to the Penal Law to define as a criminal act fraudulently procuring persons to commit insurance fraud (runners), re-define the meaning of a fraudulent insurance act, lower the monetary thresholds that define insurance fraud in the first through fourth degrees, increase penalties for insurance fraud violations and establish the crimes of aggravated insurance fraud in the second and first degrees.

Section 19 amends Executive Law section 846-m(2) (a) to specify that beginning January 1, 2006, additional monies received by the New York Motor Vehicle Theft and Insurance Fraud Prevention Board shall be used to support the efforts of local district attorneys to detect, identify and prosecute no-fault insurance fraud.

Section 20 requires the Superintendent of Insurance to study and evaluate the impact and effect of NYAIFPRA on auto insurance costs. Upon conclusion of this evaluation, the Superintendent must recommend appropriate one-time no-fault premium reductions for every insurer, by rating territory, reflective of the reduced costs as a result of NYAIFPRA`s enactment. These recommendations will be binding on insurers unless it can be demonstrated, based on sound underwriting and actuarial principles, that a reduction would result in underwriting losses.

Section 21 appropriates $3.1 million to the Motor Vehicle Theft and Insurance Fraud Prevention Fund in furtherance of the efforts of district attorneys to combat no-fault fraud.

Section 22 is a severability clause.

Section 23 is the effective date.

EFFECTS OF PRESENT LAW WHICH THIS BILL WOULD ALTER :

Numerous sections of existing law are altered by this act, as described in the summary of specific provisions.

JUSTIFICATION :

The frequency and cost of no-fault claims is rising in New York at an alarming rate. Estimates indicate that the average personal injury protection (PIP) claim in New York is 23% higher than the U.S. average, at $8,276, with fraud accounting for an average of $321 per vehicle (source: Insurance Information Institute, Fast Track Monitoring System). This figure is only an average. Some parts of New York State experience much higher levels. There has been both a greater frequency and a substantial increase in the cost per claim. Police, district attorneys and insurance fraud authorities agree that the two primary causes for this trend are fraud and over-utilization of services. The result is evident in premiums, which, for a "clean" adult driver in Brooklyn obtaining minimum limits coverage through the New York Automobile Insurance Plan (assigned risk) were approximately $3,845 per year in 2002. No-fault coverage represented $2,200, or 57 percent, of this amount. Even with recent reductions in rates by some major carriers, rates in 2005 remain stubbornly high.

No-fault fraud takes many forms. Among the most insidious are staged accidents, falsified accident reporting and fictitious or unnecessary medical treatments, some of which are of a highly questionable nature.

NYAIFPRA attacks problems with no-fault from several directions simultaneously. First, it reinstates the no-fault managed care option, which holds the promise of containing out-of-control medical costs and delivering premium savings for those who opt to utilize it.

Second, NYAIFPRA directs the establishment of medical treatment and diagnostic testing protocols to be employed in the evaluation and treatment of injuries sustained in automobile accidents. Coupled with pre-certification requirements for certain treatments and equipment, these provisions are intended to curb over-utilization and fraud in medical treatments.

Third, the bill incorporates the substance of recent efforts undertaken by the Insurance Department through the adoption of amendments to regulation 68 to address fraud and abuse by establishing reasonable time frames for the notification of a claim and the submission of medical bills to insurers. An exception would be made for reasonably justified delays due to the nature of an injury.

Fourth, the bill further enables insurers to lower insurance costs and combat suspected fraud by:

--Overturning the effect of the PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL V. MARYLAND case. This change will provide that the failure to issue a denial of claim within a 45 day time period does not preclude the raising of a defense to the claim where fraud is suspected;

--Requiring arbitration (rather than a choice between arbitration or litigation) as the exclusive remedy for claim disputes;

--attacking the problem of underwriting fraud, believed to be prevalent in Sullivan County and the Catskill region,

--creating a whistle-blower incentive for persons to report suspected insurance fraud; and

--criminalizing "runners" and enhancing existing insurance fraud penalties.

Fifth, the bill eliminates the statutory authority for the "Stewart Formula," which requires voluntary market motorists to subsidize the assigned risk plan, a subsidy that can range up to $400 per policy depending on the carrier. The existence of the formula also creates a perverse disincentive for insurers to write new business in the voluntary market, forcing otherwise insurable motorists into the assigned risk plan.

Sixth, NYAIFPRA directs resources to district attorneys, the front line of the battle against no-fault fraud, for prosecution of these crimes.

Finally, the bill directly benefits those who purchase auto insurance by requiring insurers to pass on the savings realized as a result of NYAIFPRA.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

2005-2006 A.8249 held for consideration in Insurance 2004: A.3477 Held in the Insurance Committee. 2003: A.3477 Not considered by the Insurance Committee 2002: A.7835-A Held in the Insurance Committee. 2001: A.7835 Not considered by the Insurance Committee.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS :

$3.1 million to State, all of which will be channeled to local district attorneys to prosecute no-fault fraud.

EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law; provided, however, that the amendments to paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of section 846-m of the executive law made by section nineteen of this act shall not affect the expiration of such section and shall be deemed to expire therewith.

Sponsorship

A.2798 - COLTON, ENGLEBRIGHT, GALEF, DINOWITZ, ROSENTHAL, WALKER, MAISEL, BENEDETTO, LAFAYETTE, FINCH, PERRY, SCHIMEL, conte, diaz r, jacobs, lifton, markey, nolan, pheffer, reilly, spano, sweeney / S.5243 - MARCELLINO, MORAHAN, PADAVAN.

Memorandum in Support

BILL NUMBER: A2798

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to electronic equipment recycling; and to amend the state finance law, in relation to establishing the electronic equipment recycling account within the environmental protection fund

PURPOSE : OF THE BILL: The bill establishes electronic equipment manufacturer`s responsibility for the collection, transportation and recycling of certain electronic equipment, based on their market share of this equipment.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS : The bill, as amended, creates a program whereby manufacturers of certain electronic equipment are financially responsible for the collection, transportation and recycling of such electronic equipment. Manufacturers would be responsible for registering with the Department and paying a registration fee of$5,000; reporting the total weight of covered electronic equipment sold annually in the state, or alternatively request the Department to estimate such weight based on national sales data prorated by state population; paying an additional fee based on their share of the total covered electronic devices sold in the state, or alternatively submitting a plan to run their own collection program

If manufacture collection programs exceed their annual collection targets, they may credit the excess to their next year`s collection target or sell "credits" to another registrant. All fees from the program would be deposited into the Electronic Equipment Recycling Fund in the Environmental Protection Fund.

Retailers would be responsible for posting information on where and how to recycle the covered electronic equipment. Retailers would only be able to sell electronic equipment manufactured by companies in compliance with the act.

The Department would be responsible to oversee the collections program for manufacturers opting out of running their own collection programs, which would be financed by the fees paid by these manufacturers. The Department would be responsible to ensure that collection programs were conveniently located throughout the state in every county. The Department would be authorized to contract with municipalities, not-for-profit and for-profit organizations for the collection, transportation and recycling of covered electronic equipment.

Manufacturers could not charge any of the fees to consumers. All equipment would be required to be recycled in an environmentally sound manner that does not pose a significant risk to public health or the environment. Two years after the law is enacted, it would be illegal to dispose of any of thee covered electronic equipment in a solid waste management facility.

The bill also contains enforcement provisions for violations of the program requirements.

JUSTIFICATION : The current bill is an outgrowth of a year-long process led by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Eastern Region and the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) working with representatives of fourteen northeastern US states. The model is also being proposed in a group of Midwestern states. Stakeholders from all affected entities, including manufacturers, retailers, scrap dealers, steel manufacturers, citizen organizations and others, were actively involved in the process.

Due to the high market saturation of certain electronic equipment, it is imperative that environmentally responsible management methods are established for these items. Electronic equipment in households, schools, offices and other facilities contain heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury as well as other hazardous components or additives. Left to traditional disposal methods, these components can pose a significant threat to public health and the environment.

Therefore, manufacturers of such equipment should bear some responsibility for the safe handling of such equipment at the end of their useful life. Requiring recovery of waste electronic equipment is important for waste reduction and environmental protection.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : A 10894, 1998. A4971, 1999-2000. A 6286, 2001-02. A 6096, 2003-04: A 3200-A, 2006

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS : None.

EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect one year after it shall become law.

Sponsorship

A.2648 - COLTON, LAFAYETTE, FIELDS, MAISEL, WALKER, BENEDETTO, ENGLEBRIGHT, FINCH, PERRY, SCHIMEL, alfano, brennan, conte, cook, diaz r, dinowitz, glick, jacobs, lifton markey, nolan, reilly, spano, sweeney, weisenberg / S.2763 - Not available at this time.

Memorandum in Support

BILL NUMBER: A2648A

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to manufacturers responsibility for electronic equipment recovery and recycling; and to amend the state finance law, in relation to establishing the electronic equipment recycling account within the environmental protection fund

PURPOSE OF THE BILL : The bill establishes electronic equipment manufacturer`s responsibility for the collection, transportation and recycling of certain electronic equipment, based on their return share of this equipment.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS : The bill creates a program whereby manufacturers of certain electronic equipment are financially responsible for the collection, transportation and recycling of such electronic equipment. Manufacturers would be required to: annually register with the Department and pay a registration fee of $5,000;

* report the total weight of covered electronic equipment collected annually in the state;

* pay a fee based on their share of the total covered electronic devices returned in the state, or alternatively submit a plan to run their own collection program

If manufacturers exceed their annual collection targets, they are credited the excess to their next year`s collection target or can sell the "credits" to another registrant. All fees from the program would be deposited into the Electronic Equipment Recycling account in the Environmental Protection Fund.

Retailers would be responsible for posting information on where and how to recycle the covered electronic equipment. Retailers would only be able to sell electronic equipment manufactured by companies registered with the Department.

The Department would be authorized to

* conduct a sampling and reporting program of the covered electronic devices returned in the State; this data would come from manufacturers conducting their take-back programs and from the Department-run program;

* set the return share and return share by weight for each manufacturer. The Department would be responsible to oversee collection programs, where manufacturers opt out of running their own collection programs, to be financed by fees paid by these manufacturers;

* ensure that collection programs are conveniently located throughout the State; and

* contract with municipalities, not-for-profit and for-profit organizations for the collection, transportation and recycling of covered electronic equipment.

Manufacturers are prohibited from passing on any of the fees to consumers. All equipment would be required to be recycled in an environmentally sound manner that does not pose a significant risk to public health or the environment. After January l, 2008, it would be illegal to dispose of any of the covered electronic equipment in a solid waste management facility.

The bill also contains enforcement provisions for violations of the program requirements. JUSTIFICATION : This bill is patterned after a statute recently enacted in the State of Washington. The Washington State law had support from certain manufacturers, retailers and environmental organizations. The law establishes a manufacturer`s take-back program for certain electronic devices, and fees are assessed on the basis of the manufacturer`s return share of these devices. All program costs are to be borne by the manufacturers of the electronic devices.

Due to the high market saturation of certain electronic equipment, it is imperative that environmentally responsible management methods are established for these items. Electronic equipment in households,. schools, offices and other facilities contain heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury as well as other hazardous components or additives. Left to traditional disposal methods, these components can pose a significant threat to public health and the environment.

Therefore, manufacturers of such equipment should bear some responsibility for the safe handling of such equipment at the end of their useful life. Requiring recovery of waste electronic equipment is important for waste reduction and environmental protection.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : 2006, A l1330-A.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS : None.

EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect one year after it shall become law, except that the ban on disposal of electronic equipment shall take effect two years after the effective date of the law.

Sponsorship

A.5409 - BOYLAND, ESPAILLAT, LAVINE, RIVERA J, LUPARDO, FIELDS, canestrari, colton, diaz r, errigo, galef, hooper, john, lafayette, mayersohn, robinson, towns, weisenberg / - 3

Memorandum in Support

BILL NUMBER: A5409

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to providing that local and state fairs, shopping centers and amusement parks must provide recycling containers and be part of a recycling program

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF THE BILL :

Provides that fairs, shopping centers and amusement parks shall provide recycling containers and participate in available recycling programs.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :

Amends the environmental conservation law by adding a new title 18 of section 27-1801 which would require that all local and state fairs, shopping centers containing more than five stores and amusement parks must provide recycling containers at appropriate locations on the premises of such fairs, shopping centers and amusement parks. All recycling containers shall be appropriately labeled. All such fairs, shopping centers and amusement parks shall participate in a recycling program if such program is offered by the municipality in which fair, shopping enter or amusement park is located.

JUSTIFICATION :

According to New York Waste Less, recycling can save business money by reducing certain costs. In addition, if there are substantial amount of recycling that is collected the business scan actually produce revenue. A Brooklyn Brewery, a beer brewer and distributor in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, annually generate 510 tons of waste, composed largely of corrugated cardboard and stretch-film plastic. Before implementing the recycling, the company spent $3,290 per month for waste disposal. After implementing the recycling program, the brewery now diverts 22.7 tons of material per month from its waste stream and saves more than $25,000 annually. In addition, during an Upstate New York Composting Roundtable, one of the major issues was increasing the community acceptance to recycling programs in which county fairs and other large event demonstration should be involved in recycling. Through recycling programs in shopping centers, state and local fairs, and amusement parks there will be money saved for those businesses. Also, recycling helps prevent the squandering of irreplaceable natural resources and reduces the environmental burdens of land filling and incineration.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

A.5884 - 2006

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :

None to state government.

EFFECTIVE DATE : This act shall take effect immediately.